Thursday, January 27, 2011

My column in CityWatch last week announcing the retirement of Bill Robertson, Director of the Bureau of Streets Services, drew a lot of comments supporting the notion that his departure would be a great loss to the City of LA but with an interesting twist.

Testimonials from the community included EB from Sunland Tujunga, who wrote:

“Bill Robertson is all that Stephen Box says he is and more. I had the privilege of working with Bill on a local project. He and his staff were efficient, involved, knowledgeable, thoughtful and creative.

Shortly after the Sunland Tujunga NC was established, Bill came personally to our Land Use Committee meeting to discuss how we were going to handle the repairs in our sadly deteriorating neighborhood roadways.

I attended one of his workshops on "How to handle LA's sidewalks or the lack of them! Once again, he proved how logical and practical he is.

I would be delighted to stump for him if he would run for Mayor.”

Testimonials from the inside included this comment from JF who wrote:

I want to congratulate you for the wonderful article you wrote about Bill Robertson. I am a friend of his and your comments were right on.

He will be missed but thankfully he has two very talented assistant directors that can continue to run the Bureau of Street Services as best as possible in these difficult times.

Typical retirement accolades review the past and shower praise on performance but those who know Bill Robertson reflected a unique perspective, one that falls into the “He’s so good, you won’t know he’s gone!”

In looking back over the last few months, I realized that Robertson had been uncharacteristically missing from some key meetings, a strategy that I now realize was part of his leadership development strategy.

At the Mayor’s Summit in August, I sat next to Nazario Sauceda in a room filled with Department Managers and assumed that Robertson’s absence was due to schedule conflicts but I now realize that Robertson was busy replacing himself.

At the last meeting I attended at the Bureau of Street Services, I was greeted at the door by Robertson who then disappeared and left Sauceda and Ron Olive in charge. Again I attributed it to a scheduling conflict but now I see that Robertson was planning for the future.

Again in December, the Bureau of Street Services held a meeting in Hollywood, the type of meeting that Robertson is famous for attending, but he was nowhere to be seen. In hindsight, I now realize that his influence was even greater than his presence.

USC’s School of Public Policy profiled Robertson a few years ago and declared him an “Exemplar of Politics and Public Management” noting his commitment to relationships in the community, within the department, and within City Hall.

They also noted that his military training has resulted in a commitment to creating an organization that continues functioning smoothly and without interruption, even if the leader falls.

“If I’m gone tomorrow,” Robertson is quoted as reflecting, “Nazario will step into my office, and nobody would know I was there.”

Robertson has been right about a lot of things but he’s wrong about this. The people of LA will definitely know he was there! The best way to honor his investment in the future of LA is to work together to develop Citywide succession strategies that move LA forward.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. Disclosure: Box is also a candidate for 4th District Councilman.)

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

LA’s Alliance of Neighborhood Councils celebrated its 10th anniversary with a rare public viewing of California’s latest addition to the endangered species list, LA’s Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA). (Video links 1 and video link 2).

Jim Dantona, Chief Deputy to the CEO of LA’s CRA, gave a quick overview of Governor Brown’s plan to dismantle the state’s redevelopment agencies, freeing up the incremental tax revenue and returning it to local municipalities for police, fire, hospitals and schools.

Dantona is nothing if not a charming diplomat but he was fighting an uphill battle that started off on soft sand as he cast dispersions on the Governor’s plan by asking “Can you believe the state?”

Ziggy Kruse, Executive Producer of HNN-TV, pointed out that it’s even harder to believe the CRA, after last week’s Brown Act violating Special Meeting that served a simple goal, to move almost a billion dollars in CRA funds into safe pockets. “How can you engage in a process that excludes the public and expect us to trust you?”

Dantona explained that the CRA staff believed that the state was moving quickly so they moved even quicker to protect the CRA funds. This “punch-first” strategy was referred to by some in the audience as the “unlawful conveyance of funds” and demonstrates the lose-lose behavior of a city that too often works against partners rather than with them.

Dantona is to be commended for performing what he refers to as “piñata” work, and the audience responded by revealing that in many of the city’s 31 CRA project areas, it’s the community that feels like it’s being treated like a piñata.

During the Q & A session, Barbara Broide, President of Westwood South of Santa Monica Blvd. Homeowners Association, pointed out that the CRA’s habit of allowing CRA project developers to include significant billboard placement in proposed projects in order to augment revenues is little more than promoting a “Blight for Blight” scheme. The audience agreed. She urged the CRA to be proactive in halting such practices which advance projects that otherwise would likely not "pencil out" without the billboards and their blight.

Bob Blue, former Chair of the Hollywood Studio District NC, acknowledged the catalytic impact of projects such as Hollywood & Highland but pointed out that building a $600 million project that then sells for $200 million can hardly be construed as anything more than a hand out for developers. Blue argued that if the CRA is responsible for the losses, it should at least share in the profits of any victories. The audience agreed.

Mary Garcia, President of Mid-Town North Hollywood Neighborhood Council, questioned the need to have the CRA stay in a neighborhood for so long, pointing at the Laurel Plaza as an example of blight that worsened with the CRA’s help. It was argued that the CRA overstays its welcome by decades and actually discourages potential catalytic impact from non-CRA developers. The audience agreed.

Many expressed their belief that many projects undertaken by the CRA with significant public investment would have been built without those investments. While some spoke in support of a number of smaller projects underway with CRA support, the overwhelming sentiment of those present was that the Governor's proposal to take a significant portion of CRA funds away from the agencies in order to fund state-mandated programs and services is a sound approach in this time of unprecedented budget crisis.

While the Governor works at the state level, local community activists were circulating draft motions for neighborhood councils in Los Angeles, calling on local support for a call to dismantle Community Redevelopment Agencies and to redirect the incremental tax revenue back to local communities.

As the City of LA engages in a battle with the State of California over a billion dollars of the public’s money, the CRA’s spokesperson acknowledged that there is no data to demonstrate the effectiveness or economic impact of the redevelopment agency concept.

The City of LA’s CRA assault on the people of LA begins with simple violations of process and continues to the siege of communities that lasts for decades.

Any attempts to move forward must be supported by real data, not simple anecdotal evidence, and the people of LA must come first with a process that is participatory and supported by honest and open accounting.

The City of LA’s credibility has been destroyed by stalled projects that blight communities, approvals of projects to politically connected developers of dubious performance history. As developers return to the trough for additional funds to complete projects already approved and funded, the CRA’s scramble to divert funds from essential programs and services is a self imposed death blow.

The City of LA’s ability to weather the current fiscal crisis depends on its credibility. The world is watching, the financial community is preparing for triage, and the people who call LA home have been betrayed. It is imperative that the City of LA put the people of LA first by putting our money where it belongs, in our communities.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. Disclosure: Box is also a candidate for 4th District Councilman.) Video credits: Monica Harmon- “Monica’s Digest”

Friday, January 21, 2011

The CRA’s announcement of a “Special Meeting” was the battle cry and the subsequent barrage of agendas, supplemental agendas, and revised supplemental agendas were the weapons in the ongoing war of City Hall vs. the People of Los Angeles.

Last week’s announcement by Governor Brown that he intended to return locally generated tax revenue to local municipalities drew an aggressive response from the City of LA’s Community Redevelopment Agency, demonstrating once again LA’s knack for alienating potential allies rather that looking for common ground.

At issue was Brown’s announcement that he wanted to close nearly 400 municipal redevelopment agencies and return nearly $5 billion in locally collected tax revenue to the general funds of the local communities.

Somehow the traditional cut-and-paste media was only able to reformat CRA press releases and Browns effort was referred to as a “hand-out” that would benefit...gulp...general fund support for police, fire, health and education.

The Downtown News went so far as to say “Brown’s proposal would skim (emphasis mine) $1.7 billion from new tax increment generated by redevelopment agencies across the state...”

Providing balance, LA Weekly was able to discern between mythology and reality, calling out LA’s City Hall leadership for jumping into the Fog of War fray that is standard operating procedure when it comes to moving funds from one pocket to the other, all while claiming that the city is broke.

Just last year, budget advocates were confronted with the City of LA’s $450 million budget deficit at the same time that the CRA/LA was holding a $480 million surplus.

Now that the State of California and the City of LA have an opportunity to connect, to work together to ensure that our budget is balanced and that our Public Safety, Public Works, Public Health, and Public Education commitments are met, the City of LA has taken the money and run.

In many ways the subject is simple, the money comes from the local community, it belongs to the local community, and it must serve the local community.

As the City of LA discusses cutting police and fire and libraries and maintenance of infrastructure, it’s imperative that the process of bringing the CRA into the city family be open and transparent, something that isn’t happening.

The people of Los Angeles will have a great opportunity to discuss the CRA, Brown’s plan for redevelopment agencies, the City of LA’s budget and our financial future at Saturday’s Alliance of Neighborhood Councils meeting.

Vince Bertoni, Deputy Director of Planning, Cary Brazeman, founder of LA Neighbors United and Jim Dantona, Chief Deputy to Chris Essel, CEO of the Community Redevelopment Agency are headlining the Alliance’s 10th Anniversary meeting at the Los Angeles City College in East Hollywood. The meeting is Saturday, January 22nd at 9:30 at the LA City College Faculty Lounge. It’s open, it’s transparent, and it’s your opportunity to engage in the future of our communities.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. Disclosure: Box is also a candidate for 4th District Councilman.)

Before Governor Brown astounded the State by proposing to abolish all the Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRA’s), this writer had sent a CRA questionnaire to the candidates for Council District 4.

The candidates for Council District #4 for the March 8, 2011 election are: Councilmember Tom LaBonge, Stephen Box and Tomas O’Grady. Each has a website so readers can see for themselves the biographical information.

The CRA’s were established after WW II as a vehicle to stimulate urban renewal. No city must establish a CRA, but Los Angeles chose to create one, CRA/LA. CRA’s obtain their revenue by taking all the incremental property tax revenue generated by their projects as well as by sometimes taking the sales taxes connected with their projects.

Bunker Hill, for example, has taken in $717 Million in property taxes for the CRA/LA. Overall, CRA/la has taken in $2.8 Billion; $1.2 Billion in the last seven years.

Because the schools had clawed back some of the CRA money by state statute and by lawsuits, the City supported Prop 22 on the November 2010 ballot which made it unconstitutional for any CRA money to go to schools or to the City’s general fund, e.g. for roads. Yes, the City defunded schools in order to give billions to real estate speculators!

Because the City has claimed that it is broke, and thus, it has to fire personnel and reduce services, the fact that the CRA has a multi-million dollar surplus merits public discussion. Hence, the CRA questionnaire.

At the outset I believe all Angelenos should be very thankful that Tomas O’Grady and Stephen Box actually believe in openness and wrote extensive, thoughtful answers, knowing that their answers would be used for an article over which they will have no control. Councilmember LaBonge’s answer were short, evasive, and seldom dealt with the issues. Each reader can link to the full answers to form their own opinion about the candidates’ full statements.

Question #1: Should City Council tell the public about the multi-million surplus in the CRA/LA account when discussing the budget?

Labonge:
No. Instead the councilmember wrote: “The intricacies of the funding mechanism in place are available to anyone who seeks them out, and I will always work to make that information available to anyone who wants it. You can also go independently on-line to the city and CRA websites to find this information.”

Councilmember LaBonge will not disclose the data unless someone somehow knows that it exists and then he will give it to that person who apparently already knows about it. Voters can decide whether finding out the city’s true financial condition should be a Game of Hide ‘n Seek.

O’Grady:
Yes, the public should know. Mr. O’Grady has some cogent and specific ideas how the CRA should provide more detailed information. He gave a lot of thought and research into this matter and I urge people to follow the link to his full comments.

Box:
Yes, the council has the duty to communicate all surpluses. Similarly, Mr. Box gave thoughtful answers and people should also read his comments in full.

Question #2: Do you favor abolishing the CRA?

LaBonge:
No. Councilman LaBonge strongly disagrees that the CRA should be abolished. Contrary to the other two candidates, he did not provide any analysis how to deal with the CRA’s financial impact on the city.

O’Grady:
Mr. O’Grady suggests a new Redevelopment Pilot Project to stimulate development from “within communities” as opposed to having large projects imposed on communities by outside developers. I interpret Mr. O’Grady’s comments to be “Yes” for abolishing the current CRA and designing a new one which achieves community objectives.

Box:
Mr. Box’s immediate remedy is to examine the CRA and its relationship to the City of LA and explore options for immediate action, leading up to a Charter Amendment that would abolish the CRA.

Both Mr. O’Grady and Mr. Box provided analysis of the situation and I recommend that readers link on to their full answers.

Update on Question #2: After my CRA questions were posed, Governor Brown announced his plan to abolish the CRA’s. Readers will have to look to candidates’ web sites for discussions of the Governor’s proposal. There will be much discussion in the upcoming weeks about how taxpayers can retrieve their billions upon billions of tax dollars from the CRA’s.

Question #4: Do you support bringing Kelo eminent domain to all of Los Angeles?

Under Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), a city may take property and give it to another private person for that entity’s personal profit. Traditional eminent domain forbids the property going to another person for personal profit. CRA eminent domain is Kelo eminent domain as the properties go to private developers who reap the profits.

LaBonge:
LaBonge supported AB 2531 which would have brought Kelo eminent domain to every parcel in Los Angles. His response today is that he wants to review the matter with the City Attorney.

He opposes “unilateral eminent domain,” but there is no explanation of what he means about unilateral eminent domain, so at best his answer appears to be evasive. One would think that since he supported Kelo eminent domain, he would have some thoughts to share with the voters.

O’Grady:
While he opposed the secretive manner in which AB 2531 was sprung upon the public, Mr. O’Grady would support a new AB 2531 to bring Kelo eminent domain to all of Los Angeles.

Box:
Mr. Box vehemently opposes expansion of eminent domain powers and would oppose any attempt to bring Kelo eminent domain to Los Angeles. He believes as a matter of principle that the government should not take one man’s property and give it to another private citizen.

Question #5: Since the City Attorney may not investigate wrongdoing at City Hall, would you support a charter amendment to bifurcate the City Attorney into two separate offices (1) City Attorney to advise the City, Council and staff, and (2) City Prosecutor whose sole function would be to prosecute criminal wrongdoers?

Because the City Attorney owes fiduciary duties to his clients who are the City, its staff, and its elected officials including the CRA, if a councilmember confides in the City Attorney, “I want to take this cash bribe from developer X,” the City Attorney cannot take action, even if the councilmember stuffs thousands of dollars into his pocket right in front of the City Attorney. Thus, the prosecutor whom the public believes would be most diligent in protecting it from city hall corruption is legally prevented.

The point of the questionnaire was to obtain the candidates’ thoughts so that the voters can discuss, study, and review. This is a politician’s “No Comment” answer.

O’Grady:
Mr. O’Grady’s answer is a thoughtful discussion of the different ways the civil and criminal functions of a City Attorney Office may be structured. Mr. O’Grady seems to believe that how the city attorney interprets the “client determination” issue can resolve the matter, and thus, it appears that he is not prepared to support two separate offices. I do not think, however, that this opinion will necessarily be Mr. O’Grady’s position on the subject.

Box:
Mr. Box supports bifurcation so that the City Prosecutor would be free to address any and all criminal matters which the City Attorney now handles plus being able to handle any and all criminal matters including felonies which involve the city, its staff and elected officials. He also supports Ratepayers Advocate (RPA) and an Office of Public Accounta-bility (OPA) who would assist in keeping the City honest.

Final Words:
Both Mr. O’Grady and Mr. Box provided extensive answers taking the city’s problems very seriously. Because literally billions of dollars and the quality of life for Angelenos are at stake, I hope people will take the time to look over their suggestions. Councilmember LaBonge’s seems to think everything is fine as it is.

(Richard Lee Abrams is an attorney in Los Angeles. He can be reached at rickleeabrams@gmail.com )

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

The bumpy road through LA’s budget crisis just took a turn for the worse as William Robertson, Director of LA’s The Bureau of Street Services, tendered his resignation with the simple explanation “It’s my time.”

Robertson’s announcement is certain to fuel speculation that “He’s fed up with it all!” and he conceded “Yes, I am fed up with it all. But I was planning to leave last year and I stayed on to take my department through the reorganization. Now, it really is my time.”

I’ve worked with Bill on three different levels and it’s from that perspective that I offer my opinion that his departure will be a tremendous loss to the City of LA within Public Works, within the larger LA community, and within City Hall.

The City of Los Angeles has the largest roadway network in the nation which in turn has the largest roadway network in the world. LA is a full generation behind schedule in roadway infrastructure investment resulting in a city that leads the nation in deteriorated road conditions. Research estimates that fully 64% of LA's streets are in poor condition, causing LA residents to pay an average of $746 per vehicle in repairs per year as the result of damages from potholes and road debris.

Against this backdrop of deterioration and disrepair, Robertson has demonstrated a knack for setting maximum performance standards while City Hall looks for the minimum acceptable performance. Some suggest that his military background is the foundation for a management style that is quick to size up assets, focus on the objective, collect data, measure performance, and deliver on his commitments.

LA’s budget cuts have crushed departmental commitments to the delivery of city services and the cost of raw product is rapidly escalating. Robertson responded by implementing a “Cold In-Place Recycling” strategy that resurfaces streets using a single huge piece of equipment that literally eats the street, recycling the materials, leaving a resurfaced street behind.

Less invasive to the community, 25 percent to 35 percent more efficient than conventional technologies, one would think that City Hall would have cloned Robertson and invested in more machines. But, apparently, it wasn’t the right time.

LA’s press conference solutions such as “Operation Pothole” and “Operation Smooth Ride” promote the fantasy that calls to 311 are something more than outrage measurements and schemes to limit city liability to only those potholes on record.

Robertson responded by implementing a long-term sophisticated data collection strategy that inventories all 69,000 pavement sections in the City of LA using an automated vehicle equipped with a computerized work station. It collects digital imagery and uses lasers to capture roadway roughness and rutting data and then the "pavement distress data" is used to prioritize the different layers of service, from emergency repairs to slurry seals to maintenance overlays to resurfacing to reconstruction.

One would think that City Hall would have cloned Robertson and invested in more machines. But, apparently, it wasn’t the right time.

LA’s neighborhood council system was created over a decade ago and department heads still grapple with the notion that the public wants to participate with a more responsive government, monitoring city services and offering advice on the budget. Robertson seized the opportunity to connect with the community, demonstrating a respect for the people of LA and a serious commitment to empowerment.

From educating the public with his “Professor Pothole” campaign to empowering communities with 87 local funding pools, his commitment to civic engagement is unrivaled.

One would think that City Hall would have cloned Robertson and supported his commitment to sharing power with the public. But, apparently, it wasn’t the right time.

LA’s bureaucratic system is Byzantine and insiders often seek refuge by deferring the public in order to avoid responsibility or liability. Robertson revealed his solution to this problem at a Silver Lake Neighborhood Council Transportation Committee meeting several years ago when he showed up with both senior and lower-level staff in tow. He explained “When I speak, they back me up. When they speak, I back them up. That’s a promise I can make because I lead by example and this is how they learn.”

One would think that City Hall would have cloned Robertson and reproduced his strategy for creating a department that moves quickly and with accountability. But, apparently, it wasn’t the right time.

Last year’s City Council budget hearings consisted of every single city department coming before the Budget Committee to defend their budget against the CAO’s recommended cuts. Robertson showed up with a plan for achieving the proposed budget cuts while still delivering city services and keeping his department intact.

One would think that City Hall would have cloned Robertson and put him in charge of departmental budget efficiencies and performance. But, apparently, it wasn’t the right time.

LA’s departments operate as little fiefdoms, fiercely guarding staffing and budgets, maintaining independence and autonomy, avoiding conflict and responsibility, and sometimes competing with others within the city family. Robertson has a track record for crossing jurisdictional lines in order to deliver on his commitment to doing what’s in the best interest of the city, even if it’s not his immediate departmental responsibility.

One would think that City Hall would have cloned Robertson and put him in charge of silo busting. But, apparently, it wasn’t the right time.

Bill Robertson is unique in his ability to balance politics with public administration, always avoiding the “either/or” solutions that are so prevalent in our community.

He has demonstrated a knack for navigating City Hall, for training strong leaders, and for working with the people of Los Angeles, not against them.

Through it all, he maintained his commitment to the Bureau of Street Services and to implementing innovations and technology, all while creating an organization that benefits those within, those in the community, and those at City Hall.

Acknowledging that LA’s budget crisis, impending service cuts, sale of assets, threats of layoffs and battle with the state over redevelopment funds might prompt people to speculate that he was fed up with it all, Robertson conceded “It’s true, I’m fed up.”

Bill Robertson was a rare city manager, one who did not need a City Charter to tell him that the people of Los Angeles were the priority.

He did not need an org chart to tell him that when trees are falling down after a storm and endangering life and property, professional tree trimmers should get busy trimming trees without regard to departmental turf.

He didn’t need a Chief Administrative Officer to tell him that in times of budget crisis it is imperative to plan for cuts while committing to delivering city services.

Bill will be missed and his departure is a great loss to the City of LA. He was an inspiration to me. Now, more than ever, we need more people like him in City Hall. It’s LA’s time!

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. Disclosure: Box is also a candidate for 4th District Councilman.)

Friday, January 14, 2011

It’s ballot measure season, that time of the year when obfuscation becomes a blood sport and Jabberwocky becomes the battle cry!

There are ten ballot measures scheduled for public vote on LA’s March 8 Primary Election and the people of Los Angeles are well-advised to approach carefully and to read cautiously because all is not as it seems.

This claim is backed up by a simple survey of past ballot measures and sleight of hand proposals such as the recent statewide Prop 22 which was positioned as “protecting” local development dollars and “preventing” another State of California “hand-out” of public revenue.

Somehow the movement of local money to the state level and then back to local schools and hospitals was billed as a “hand-out” while the “protection” of developers at the expense of the community was positioned as a “public benefit”.

LA’s Telephone Utility Users Tax was a thinly veiled plan from Mayor Villaraigosa to preserve an illegal 10% tax by offering the “victims” an opportunity to approve a 9% tax. Several city council members presented the ballot measure as “tax relief” even though voters could have eliminated the entire tax, simply by voting against the proposal.

Somehow an indictment of the City of LA’s court challenged policy of seizing 10% illegally was avoided by offering “tax relief” and discussion was cut short when the city invoked a “218 emergency” which expedited the ballot measure allowing it to pass with a simple majority rather than a two-thirds vote.

LA City’s Measure R from 2006 was positioned as “ethics reform” yet somehow its most significant impact was the extension of term limits for the members of LA’s City Council from two four-year terms to three.

Somehow the promises of “no more free meals” and “no more tickets to sporting events and concerts” distracted the voters just long enough and LA City Councilmembers were given an additional four years to continue the good work of “resisting lobbyists” and “imposing tough reforms on contract bidders.”

Along the way, the public is seduced with “a frank, open discussion” of “community benefits” from leadership that continues to promise to be “honest, effective and accountable to the voters.”

Somehow these promises are offered to the public as if accountability and performance are “going beyond” the minimum standard. Meanwhile, the public is left scratching its collective head in an effort to translate the impending legislation and ballot measures.

Consider this scenario.

A group of Angelenos are walking down the street when they are accosted by a mugger. “Give me $10,000 or else!” he demands. The victims put their money together and discover that they have $9,000 which they offer to the mugger. “But please don’t hurt us!” they plead.

In the language of City Hall ballot measures, the Angelenos experienced “relief” that resulted in a 10% reduction of the original “burden” and the fact that their request to escape physical harm was honored could be construed as a “community benefit” but their behavior appears to be a “hand-out” that could trigger an ethics investigation.

While the scenario borders on the absurd, it is also the basic pattern of “either/or” governance that pits fans of libraries against fans of parks while the disabled and senior citizens compete for budget dust.

Through it all, the clock ticks and “Sell LA” gets underway while City Hall continues the battle cry of “either we give up the crown jewels or we’re firing the staff!”

The people of Los Angeles deserve open, honest, and transparent governance and the most immediate opportunity is with the upcoming City Council driven ballot measures and the full range of options.

It’s ballot measure season, that time of the year when obfuscation becomes a blood sport and Jabberwocky becomes the battle cry!

There are ten ballot measures scheduled for public vote on LA’s March 8 Primary Election and the people of Los Angeles are well-advised to approach carefully and to read cautiously because all is not as it seems.

This claim is backed up by a simple survey of past ballot measures and sleight of hand proposals such as the recent statewide Prop 22 which was positioned as “protecting” local development dollars and “preventing” another State of California “hand-out” of public revenue.

Somehow the movement of local money to the state level and then back to local schools and hospitals was billed as a “hand-out” while the “protection” of developers at the expense of the community was positioned as a “public benefit”.

LA’s Telephone Utility Users Tax was a thinly veiled plan from Mayor Villaraigosa to preserve an illegal 10% tax by offering the “victims” an opportunity to approve a 9% tax. Several city council members presented the ballot measure as “tax relief” even though voters could have eliminated the entire tax, simply by voting against the proposal.

Somehow an indictment of the City of LA’s court challenged policy of seizing 10% illegally was avoided by offering “tax relief” and discussion was cut short when the city invoked a “218 emergency” which expedited the ballot measure allowing it to pass with a simple majority rather than a two-thirds vote.

LA City’s Measure R from 2006 was positioned as “ethics reform” yet somehow its most significant impact was the extension of term limits for the members of LA’s City Council from two four-year terms to three.

Somehow the promises of “no more free meals” and “no more tickets to sporting events and concerts” distracted the voters just long enough and LA City Councilmembers were given an additional four years to continue the good work of “resisting lobbyists” and “imposing tough reforms on contract bidders.”

Along the way, the public is seduced with “a frank, open discussion” of “community benefits” from leadership that continues to promise to be “honest, effective and accountable to the voters.”

Somehow these promises are offered to the public as if accountability and performance are “going beyond” the minimum standard. Meanwhile, the public is left scratching its collective head in an effort to translate the impending legislation and ballot measures.

Consider this scenario.

A group of Angelenos are walking down the street when they are accosted by a mugger. “Give me $10,000 or else!” he demands. The victims put their money together and discover that they have $9,000 which they offer to the mugger. “But please don’t hurt us!” they plead.

In the language of City Hall ballot measures, the Angelenos experienced “relief” that resulted in a 10% reduction of the original “burden” and the fact that their request to escape physical harm was honored could be construed as a “community benefit” but their behavior appears to be a “hand-out” that could trigger an ethics investigation.

While the scenario borders on the absurd, it is also the basic pattern of “either/or” governance that pits fans of libraries against fans of parks while the disabled and senior citizens compete for budget dust.

Through it all, the clock ticks and “Sell LA” gets underway while City Hall continues the battle cry of “either we give up the crown jewels or we’re firing the staff!”

The people of Los Angeles deserve open, honest, and transparent governance and the most immediate opportunity is with the upcoming City Council driven ballot measures and the full range of options.

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Induced demand is a powerful political weapon and the people of Los Angeles are subjected to “either/or” proposals with such regularity that the current debate over the sale of LA’s parking assets is just another chapter in the ongoing saga of the impending budget crisis.

As the streets of Los Angeles collapse and another Operation Pothole gets underway, City Hall is quietly moving to sell off income producing fixed assets, this time positioning the “either/or” scenario as “either we layoff city employees or we sell off parking assets.”

OMG!

The City of LA has been moving in this direction for years, ample time to conduct an open and transparent discussion of the proposed sale of city assets. Now we find ourselves racing against the ticking clock (another powerful negotiating tool!) and the City Council is rushing to make a decision while the public finds itself on the sidelines.

Tick, tick, tick!

It seems like yesterday that the people of Los Angeles were slammed with the “9% phone tax” ballot measure, positioned as a reduction of 10% from the then illegal fee that was being collected by the city but also positioned as necessary if the city was to continue to offer the same great service. All was forgiven and the city moved on...towards the edge of the budget crisis cliff. The law was broken but the people forgot.

It seems like yesterday that the people of Los Angeles were offered the “either/or” option of paying more for trash collection or suffering a shortage in public safety staffing. The people of LA bought into the “10,000 Police Officers on the streets of LA” mandate and the trash fees went up but the city of LA was in the middle of a budget crisis and the money was used elsewhere. Meanwhile, police officers are moving from patrol duties to clerking responsibilities, all in an effort to replace furloughed and laid-off civilian employees. The promise was broken but the people forgot.

It seems like yesterday that the people of Los Angeles were grappling with closed libraries, closed fire stations, fee increases, permit increases, shuttered cultural centers, loss of incremental tax revenue, strained infrastructure, and restricted delivery of city services.

Wait! It was yesterday! And it’s still happening today! How quickly we forget!

Through it all, the City Council gets the advice, counsel and support of the City Attorney while the people of Los Angeles get...well...a great view of the proceedings from Channel 35 and the option of dropping by council chambers for a moment or two of public comment.

Typically, in significant transactions between two or more parties, skilled representatives are at the table to advise their clients on the deal, the options and the ramifications of potential decisions.

In Los Angeles, the City Attorney (CA) is busy working more than one side of the table, advising the City Council, advising the CAO, advising the Department of Recreation and Parks, interrupting only long enough to remind the people of Los Angeles that the CA can’t offer advice or support to the residents, “After all, the people of LA aren’t the CA’s client.”

The current brouhaha over the sale of LA’s parking assets is simply another in a long series of one-sided, induced-demand, fire-sale crisis solutions that is fed to the people of Los Angeles who are out-gunned, under-represented, and over-burdened. That must change!

Somehow those deliberating over the fire sale of city assets as a short term solution to a long term problem have missed the successes of neighboring communities where parking income has been leveraged into community enhancements and streetscape improvements, improving the quality of life in their neighborhoods.

Well-managed parking assets combined with park-once valet options stimulate the economy, improve employment opportunities, and result in safer streets, all as a result of embracing parking revenue, not jettisoning it off as a short-term solution to a long-term problem.

While the complexities of parking asset development, funding, construction, operations and management are handled by the many city departments involved in representing the people of LA, one thing is certain; it must be conducted with greater foresight, transparency, accountability, and results.

From Orange County to Mammoth Lakes to the City of Bell, the arrogance of governance without oversight has demonstrated its fatal sting. Now is the time for the people of Los Angeles to demand representation and oversight, starting with a City Prosecutor with enforcement authority.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. Disclosure: Box is also a candidate for 4th District Councilman.)

Friday, January 07, 2011

Demonstrating that “cost recovery” should actually involve “a cost,” LA’s Recreation and Parks (RAP) Commission suspended the Community Garden plot fee rental increases after listening to a staff report that acknowledged that, in some cases, the City of LA didn’t even own or operate the gardens being subjected to the fees.

At issue is a Recreation and Parks “cost recovery” plot rental fee that was approved in July of 2010 by the RAP Commission as part of a 70+ page document that flew past the radar of LA’s gardeners until November when RAP staff announced the fee increase at a gardener’s meeting.

The compost hit the fan!

LA’s loose network of community gardens includes the Wattles Farm, operating in sync with RAP since 1975, the Ocean View Farms that was issued a permit in 1977, and the Orcutt Ranch which has been around for 25 years.

Some gardens, such as the Sepulveda Garden Center with over 800 plots, are quite large while others, such as the Rose Hills/Debs Gardens with 21 plots, are more intimate. Some gardens, such as the Expo Center/CSU Urban Garden, are operated as educational facilities while others, such as Little Green Acres Park, are closed to the public and actually operated by RAP staff and grow food as a service for the community.

While RAP’s proposed fees came under the guise of “cost recovery” the RAP staff report revealed that the proposed charges were being applied to gardens that have no costs to the City of Los Angeles. The gardeners at Ocean View Farms operate 500 plots on DWP land and already pay their own water, requiring no services from RAP.

Of the other gardens, one of them is located on Caltrans property and another is located on land belonging to the Army Corps of Engineers.

Through it all, it became clear that the City of LA’s relationship with the community gardeners was quite complicated and varied dramatically from garden to garden, begging the question, “What are the actual costs?”

Crickets chirped.

Most interesting was the survey of the services actually provided by the City of LA to the gardens. In some cases, RAP staff are reported as providing “edging, pruning, and blowing” services, a claim that was challenged as being at odds with the ethos of a community gardening.

At the end of the report, it became apparent that the RAP proposed/Commission approved/Gardener protested fees were inappropriate when examined on a case by case basis and even simply charging for water became complicated with plot sizes that vary from small as 32 square feet at North Weddington to a maximum of 1500 square feet at Little Green Acres.

RAP staff recommended a suspension of the previously adopted fee increases while the Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition (LANCC) and the East Hollywood Neighborhood Council (EHNC) both called for the fee increase to be rescinded.

Commission President Barry Sanders wrapped the RAP review of community gardens under RAP “jurisdiction” by suggesting that this opportunity “may be ripe” to create an environment where gardeners can manage themselves. “Maybe the gardeners should rule the roost. That’s something that will require the gardeners to do the work, in terms of organizing themselves and paying the department for cost recovery.”

While the immediate discussion of community gardens may seem to only impact the 1500 gardeners who operate plots in LA, the larger issue is one of simple municipal operations and LA’s bureaucratic confusion over core services, cost recovery, and administrative authority.

It is imperative that this simple “cost recovery” issue be examined in the big picture and that the City of LA stop looking to balance the budget on the backs of the individuals it serves but instead focus on core services, operating efficiencies and an honest accounting of assets and liabilities.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. Disclosure: Box is also a candidate for 4th District Councilman.)

Tuesday, January 04, 2011

Angelenos in pursuit of oversight reform are in the midst of an "all or nothing" battle that starts with the upcoming opportunity to create of a Ratepayers Advocate (RPA) and establish the Office of Public Accountability. (OPA) But both efforts will be for naught if they are not supported with significant Commission Reform and the establishment of a City Prosecutor.

It was increasing public outrage over LA's Department of Water & Power cavalier behavior that stirred a grass roots battle to establish a Ratepayers Advocate (RPA) with oversight authority in order to ensure open review of the DWP's operations, finances, and management.

Through it all, public distrust of what Jack Humpreville refers to as "the DWP’s politically appointed Board of Commissioners, its overly politicized and less than candid executive management, and the Mayor and his evasive staff" continued to grow.

It was an internecine struggle over LA's budget crisis that led to a family feud between the DWP, the City Council, and the Mayor's Office. The residents of Los Angeles watched and listened to threats of bankruptcy, renewed layoffs, increasing flotsam and jetsam, ongoing cuts to city services, and the impending sale of city assets.

Through it all, public distrust of what Richard Lee Abrams refers to as "lots of emotional hysteria about lost services, but total silence about available funds" left the Mayor and City Council struggling to explain how a large LA deficit matched by a larger CRA surplus still results in a budget deficit that requires a fire sale of city assets.

The resulting groundswell of grassroots support for greater oversight of the DWP, the City's budget process, and the machinations of LA's Commissions and Boards stirred a stampede as the DWP Commission, the City Council, and the Mayor's office all got in the game.

As the deadline for March 8, 2011 ballot measure drew closer, there were competing proposals for a Ratepayers Advocate, an Inspector General, and an Office of Public Accountability. The DWP's union entered the fray, management and commission positions changed hands, and by the time the City Council was done, the proposed ballot measure had been watered down, resulting in reduced authority and narrow jurisdiction.

While the DWP Reform Panel originally called for charter amendments authorizing a well funded, empowered, and truly independent Ratepayers Advocate as well as an Inspector General, the resulting ballot measure no longer include the authorization of City Council to remove the DWP General Manager and any Commissioner with a two-thirds vote. The Office of Public Accountability will be limited to the review of water and power rates and will rely on the City Council and Mayor to pass ordinances to insure the thorough review and analysis of DWP’s $60 billion strategic plan and its operations, finances, and management.

Still, progress is admirable. It is rewarding and it is encouraging. But the establishment of a Ratepayers Advocate supported by the Office of Public Accountability is a hollow and symbolic gesture unless they are supported by subsequent ballot measures that reform the Commission process and establish a City Prosecutor.

All four elements must exist or the City of LA will have oversight reform that consists of a dog that is "all bark and no bite." The last thing LA needs now is oversight reform that consists of more audits and advice with no authority or mandate to enforce the law.

Those involved in neighborhood councils have learned the hard way that the City Attorney has a client, it's the City of Los Angeles. NC Boardmembers can call the CA's office for advice but not for support if their complaint is with the City of Los Angeles, that's when the public finds itself without representation.

The City Attorney owes fiduciary duties to the City's employees and its elected officials and that prohibits the City Attorney from taking any action against the interests of those people. The City Attorney may not even conduct an investigation that might reveal bad behavior by one of his clients, and if he does get such in formation during an investigation, he must hold it confidential.

Municipal authorities typically address this situation by having two separate offices. The County of Los Angeles has the District Attorney who owes no duty to the County Board of Supervisors while the County Counsel serves the Board and the Supervisors themselves.

In similar fashion, the City of Los Angeles needs two separate offices, one for the City Attorney and one for the City Prosecutor. The City Prosecutor would prosecute all the crimes which the City Attorney now prosecutes plus its jurisdiction would be expanded to cover felonies and grand jury investigations into City Hall.

The City Charter would need to clarify jurisdiction of the City Prosecutor and provide for felony investigations that involve the City of Los Angeles. Cities, counties, states and the feds can have concurrent jurisdiction, thus allowing the City Prosecutor to investigate and/or prosecute cases which involve or may involve the City, a City agency, or a City official. This must take place without divesting felony jurisdiction from the District Attorney or the State Attorney General.

As the March 8, 2011 election approaches and the ballot measure establishing a Ratepayers Advocate (RPA) and an Office of Public Accountability (OPA) get the spotlight, it is important to remember that oversight and accountability mean little, if anything at all, without enforcement authority and a mandate for prosecution.

2010 was a great year for the grassroots advocates who fought so hard to bring the issues of open and transparent governance into the marketplace of ideas. Progress was made but the impending success will be hollow if we do not continue the journey.

2011 is the year in which we can work together to move forward from awareness and into the arena of performance and accountability, supported by a City Prosecutor that has the budget, the professional expertise, the legal clout and the mandate to do a meaningful job.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. Disclosure: Box is also a candidate for 4th District Councilman.)